Go Away! Can't Serve You--You're Too Fat!

[Dera]

How does this grab ya?

FEBRUARY 1--Mississippi legislators this week introduced a bill that would make it illegal for state-licensed restaurants to serve obese patrons.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0201081fat1.html


http://www.world-of-smilies.com/html/images/smilies/essen/essen29.gif
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y27/b_ezee/smilies/FatGuy03.gif http://www9.incredimail.com/gcontent/animations/beverages/coffee_donut_md_clr.gif
http://smileys.sur-latoile.com/repository/Grands_Smileys/manger.gif
http://smileys.sur-la-toile.com/repository/Grands_Smileys/manger.gif

[VOguy]

Hmmmm.... work out the math on the population based on this ABC News story



HEALTH NEWS -- Thin is still in, but apparently fat is nowhere near as out as it used to be.

A survey finds America's attitudes toward overweight people are shifting from rejection toward acceptance. Over a 20-year period, the percentage of Americans who said they find overweight people less attractive steadily dropped from 55 percent to 24 percent, the market research firm NPD Group found.

With about two-thirds of U.S. adults overweight, Americans seem more accepting of heavier body types, researchers say. The NPD survey of 1,900 people representative of the U.S. population also found other more relaxed attitudes about weight and diet.

While body image remains a constant obsession, the national preoccupation with being thin has waned since the late 1980s and early 1990s, said the NPD's Harry Balzer.

[loner]

...the percentage of Americans who said they find overweight people less attractive steadily dropped from 55 percent to 24 percent...

This is actually an extension of the whole political correctness thing. It`s only okay to hate skinny white guys. :28:

[Judee]

How does this grab ya?

FEBRUARY 1--Mississippi legislators this week introduced a bill that would make it illegal for state-licensed restaurants to serve obese patrons.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0201081fat1.html



This is political insanity to the max!!! :yell: Why don't these insane, idiotic politicians just make it illegal for grocery stores to sell food to overweight people too! We can just starve them to death and be done with it! :censored::aargh4: Those legislators need to be locked up! Where does this type of insanity end?

[Divinorumus]

If you want socialism, you better get use to being told how much you can shove in your face. You will also be given only enough toilet paper to accommodate your allotted diet in order to insure compliance. Once you become the property of the state, you will be required to properly maintain yourselves, else you'll be charged for vandalizing state property. And you'll be set to a recycling camp for reintegration processing. Don't worry though, once they complete your genetic testing, and have weeded out all of the defects, there should be nothing but 100% healthy thoroughbred humans down on the slave farm. :sasmokin:

[WolfPa]

It's sad that we have to point out things like being overweight, or make it such an issue that we punish people whome might be unable to lose the size. Some people are just born that way.

Then again they keep lowering the standerd for what is concidered overweight. Yesterdays healthey weight standerd is todays overweight.

[Divinorumus]

It's sad that we have to point out things like being overweight, or make it such an issue that we punish people whome might be unable to lose the size. Some people are just born that way.

Well, they pick on smokers too, so what's up with that? Both are health issues that cost us all. BTW, I don't think people are simply born that way. Lung cancer comes from smoking more cigarettes than one should. Excess weight comes from eating excess food. And I can prove it if you are willing to pay for the excess food I'll have to eat. Oh, and some new clothes too. Really now, this "it's not your fault or anything you can control" mentality is helping nobody. Denial is bad medicine.

[Captain Beyond]

Well, they pick on smokers too, so what's up with that? Both are health issues that cost us all. BTW, I don't think people are simply born that way. Lung cancer comes from smoking more cigarettes than one should. Excess weight comes from eating excess food. And I can prove it if you are willing to pay for the excess food I'll have to eat. Oh, and some new clothes too. Really now, this "it's not your fault or anything you can control" mentality is helping nobody. Denial is bad medicine.

Not only smokers, but people with diabetes, high blood pressure, people who drink, people who don't exercise, or "eat rite."

Hey, if you don't think I know anything, Google the current thoughts from the lizard world (England). I'm not gonna waste my time here to post it. If you really care, you can find it on your own. Bottom line is, under the state health care system in place, those over a certain age will be left to die, no transplants, no whatever!

I won't waste my time to post all the links, because if you don't care enough to seek the truth, then you don't deserve the cure.

[Judee]

Wait until they start 'weeding' people out based on genetics. Embryo has a gene for diabetes - snuff it; for blindness - snuff it; slightly retarded - snuff it; club foot - snuff it; crooked teeth - snuff it. Hitler would love the new world that is coming. Only the perfect specimens get to live... You get my drift. This is a slippery slope with no ending. I am beginning not to like this world. Education not legislation is the key to change. What we DON'T need is more government piss-ants in our faces!

[Divinorumus]

Bottom line is, under the state health care system in place, those over a certain age will be left to die, no transplants, no whatever!

Well that's better. Seriously, I thought maybe I was going to have to pay a million billion dollars keeping grandma alive until she's 140 (her new right you know) instead of dying when she was 70 as her god had intended.

Seriously, you old folks are freaking out of your minds if you think you can create a right to live to be a hundred years old and can make your children pay for it. You got a busted something or other, but want to live longer than your design permits, do so at your own expense, but don't FORCE others to pick up the burden of keeping you alive for as long as you can make them do so.

Listen, I sympathizes with these health issues, but gawdamnit, stop enslaving others to grant you all your desired wishes. It won't be tolerated ~ slavery is no way to live, especially if you must live to be 150.

Good gawd, isn't anyone capable of seeing the fucked up world socialism and enslavement could bring about? If you make others and the government become responsible for your asses, then they will be entitled the right to tell you how you must live, like little children living under the care of mommy and daddy.

Sellouts!

[WolfPa]

Actully if you notice. With the upcomming olympics, peoplke are becomming more hyper health driven.

[Judee]

Well, here's a little surprise report...

Fat People Cheaper to Treat, Study Says
By MARIA CHENG, AP Medical Writer

(AP) -- Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it doesn't save money, researchers reported Monday. It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, according to a Dutch study that counters the common perception that preventing obesity would save governments millions of dollars.

"It was a small surprise," said Pieter van Baal, an economist at the Netherlands' National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, who led the study. "But it also makes sense. If you live longer, then you cost the health system more."

In a paper published online Monday in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that the health costs of thin and healthy people in adulthood are more expensive than those of either fat people or smokers.

Van Baal and colleagues created a model to simulate lifetime health costs for three groups of 1,000 people: the "healthy-living" group (thin and non-smoking), obese people, and smokers. The model relied on "cost of illness" data and disease prevalence in the Netherlands in 2003.

The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.

On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years, and obese people lived about 80 years. Smokers and obese people tended to have more heart disease than the healthy people.

Cancer incidence, except for lung cancer, was the same in all three groups. Obese people had the most diabetes, and healthy people had the most strokes. Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on.

The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000.

The results counter the common perception that preventing obesity will save health systems worldwide millions of dollars.

"This throws a bucket of cold water onto the idea that obesity is going to cost trillions of dollars," said Patrick Basham, a professor of health politics at Johns Hopkins University who was unconnected to the study. He said that government projections about obesity costs are frequently based on guesswork, political agendas, and changing science.

"If we're going to worry about the future of obesity, we should stop worrying about its financial impact," he said.

Obesity experts said that fighting the epidemic is about more than just saving money.

"The benefits of obesity prevention may not be seen immediately in terms of cost savings in tomorrow's budget, but there are long-term gains," said Neville Rigby, spokesman for the International Association for the Study of Obesity. "These are often immeasurable when it comes to people living longer and healthier lives."

Van Baal described the paper as "a book-keeping exercise," and said that governments should recognize that successful smoking and obesity prevention programs mean that people will have a higher chance of dying of something more expensive later in life.

"Lung cancer is a cheap disease to treat because people don't survive very long," van Baal said. "But if they are old enough to get Alzheimer's one day, they may survive longer and cost more."

The study, paid for by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports, did not take into account other potential costs of obesity and smoking, such as lost economic productivity or social costs.

"We are not recommending that governments stop trying to prevent obesity," van Baal said. "But they should do it for the right reasons."

---

© 2008 The Associated Press.
http://www.physorg.com/news121413036.html

[Divinorumus]

It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer, . . . Oh, don't worry about that. I'm quite confident that the cataclysmic events in 2011 will take care of even them. Pig out carnivores, for tomorrow you'll all pay. arharharhar :saevilw:

[VOguy]

Interesting story ....


As waistlines expand, seat belt use shrinks
But some carmakers offer no options for the obese to buckle up
AP 2:21 p.m. ET, Fri., Feb. 8, 2008

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - Like a lot of consumers, Paul McAleer focused on comfort when he recently went car shopping. Adjustable seats, a tilt steering wheel and extra height were all important.

Because he's a self-described "fat guy," the Web site designer also has to check to see if he can fit in the seat belt.

While McAleer buckles up when he drives, a new study found that seat belt use declines as body size increases. But even large drivers who want to use a seat belt may be thwarted because not all carmakers offer bigger belts or extenders.

"It would be in their best interest to make seat belts longer in the first place," says McAleer, who lives in Chicago.

Federal standards that specify the length of auto seat belts date back four decades and only require that seat belts accommodate a 215-pound man. Some manufacturers offer bigger belts or extenders anyway, but other auto companies have concerns about effectiveness and liability.

Vanderbilt University psychologist David Schlundt studied the relationship between seat belt use and weight after noticing that obese people sometimes struggled to fit into the auto restraints.

"They really have a hard time getting that belt buckle over them," Schlundt said. "They have to stretch it out and then over and then some can't see the buckle."

Schlundt and his colleagues at Meharry Medical College in Nashville reviewed nearly 250,000 responses about seat belt use from a national telephone health survey by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Based on that 2002 data, the study found that seat belt use declined as body mass index — a calculation based on height and weight — increased.

Only about 70 percent of extremely obese individuals reported always using a seat belt, while nearly 83 percent of normal-weight people always used their belts, the study found. More than half of those killed in auto accidents weren't wearing seat belts, according to the latest federal figures. The study's findings were published in the journal Obesity.

"I hate seat belts because they always seem to ride up and strangle me," said Peggy Howell, the public relations director for the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance. "But I wear them for my own safety and because it is the law."

Howell said people sometimes contact her Oakland, Calif.-based advocacy group to get information on extensions.

McAleer, who runs a Web site called Big Fat Blog, said he's worried the study will focus criticism on the obese instead of the design of seat belts. His new car has seat belts long enough for him, but he said his wife has a harder time buckling up.

Many factors affect seat belt use, including sex, age and state laws, but Schlundt said the connection between increased weight and decreased use was consistent when those things were taken into account.

Government regulations for auto manufacturers don't use BMI to determine dimensions for seat belts. The standard instead says belts must fit up to a 215-pound man who has a seated hip circumference of 47 inches. That was set in the 1960s.

When the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration considered changing the rules in 2003, it estimated that more than 38 million people, or 19 percent of the total U.S. population, were larger than the seat belt requirements.

The NHTSA decided not to revise its standards since most top manufacturers including Ford Motor Co., General Motors Corp., Chrysler LLC, Nissan Motor Co. and Honda Motor Co. have seat belts that are longer than required.

The companies each provide an average of 18-20 inches of extra belt length, more than enough to accommodate the largest percentage of drivers. Many of those manufacturers also have seat belt extensions or longer belts that can be purchased or installed at dealerships. Ford offers their extensions for free, said Wes Sherwood, a Ford spokesman.

Several foreign brands, such as Honda, BMW, Hyundai, Mercedes-Benz and Porsche, do not provide seat belt extenders. Ford's Volvo division requires buyers to sign a waiver stating they've read a list of warnings and rules for using extenders, said Daniel Johnston, a Volvo spokesman.

Extensions have to be used carefully because they can be hazardous if used by passengers who are too small, said Phil Haseltine, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Automotive Coalition for Traffic Safety.

According to the NHTSA, an incorrectly sized seat belt extender could fail to provide upper body restraint and may pull the lap belt onto the abdomen during a front impact, possibly leading to internal injury.

[Judee]

Oh, Oh! :nervous: Looks like they're going to have to make seat belts longer! Oh man! Div is gonna be so angry! :silly:

[WolfPa]

I'd rather be fat and jolly, then thin, and hungry.

We should count our blessings we are so plump. Thier are millions of scarecrows in the 3rd world that would give thier right leg for a mouthful of rice.

Whats next? A thinner Santa?